September 09, 2013

Harry Reid either missed the point of his opponents today or he's once again talking past them in an attempt to beat them on talking points alone:

“If we allow [Bashar al-]Assad’s use of chemical weapons to go unchecked and unanswered, hostile forces around the work will also assume these terrible attacks of demons like Assad are permissible.”

First, I don't think most people want to let Assad's attack go "unchecked and unanswered," they simply don't believe, for a bunch of plausible reasons, that an essentially unilateral US military strike is the best way to respond. From the start though, that's the only choice that has been offered. It would be helpful to the cause of political civility if Reid would have enough respect for his opponents to acknowledge that that's the real problem for most who disagree with him on this issue.

Second, I don't believe it necessarily follows that if we fail to attack Syria now, other nations will feel free to use their own stockpiles of chemical weapons at will. So suddenly Serbia or North Korea will feel they can deploy chemical weapons without consequence? I think that's nonsense.

The problem for Reid is that Obama has botched this from the start. His first task should have been to build a case, along with our allies, that clearly laid out the basis for the diplomatic equivalent of an indictment. At that point, threats of force could back up the diplomatic options. We got the opposite instead. Now our fearless leader is caught in the strange position of having threats of diplomacy back up his initial desire to use force. And it's Russian sponsored diplomacy at that.

Reid can put all the lipstick on this pig that he wants and splutter on and on about morals, but his failure to address the real arguments of his opponents is what will doom his efforts in the end.

My dad thinks that the resolution in Congress to authorize US military strikes against Syria will fail and that Obama will use that as an out. If things get worse in Syria in the following months he will blame Republicans in the runup to the 2014 elections. "Remember, everything is political with Obama," he says. He believes the threat of impeachment is what will keep Obama in check if the resolution fails to pass both chambers.

I think Obama still wants military strikes to go forward and the talk late last week of expanded target lists is a signal for that. If he can at least get the Senate to approve a resolution then he will go forward and blame Republicans in the House as obstructionists. Some in the House will clamor for impeachment, but that will only gain traction if the situation escalates and/or Americans start dying. Or a serious error on the part of the US military leads to mass casualties. If that happens all bets are off.

A very limited series of strikes that do not do much real damage will be mocked mercilessly in the region and around the world. More serious strikes that do some serious damage and sow confusion in the regime forces may prompt a renewed offensive from the rebels. The rebels will almost certainly plead with the US and its coalition of France to become their close air support just like Libya.

Even a limited strike carries the possibility of accidentally hitting chemical munitions and releasing whatever poison they hold. An NBC story highlights the five main facilities in the Syrian program, but the weapons themselves may be dispersed among 50 or more units in the Syrian military. I would also not put it past the Assad regime to stage a chemical release and then claim the US set it off. Any sort of mass casualty event, chemical or not, after we start shooting will be disastrous for the US.

Will Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah retaliate? We should be reminded that we are talking about acts of war against Syria, no matter how justified we feel they may be. Syria would have a legal justification to respond against military targets in turn. I think if the attacks are not too severe, Syria will take its lumps and go back to trying to win the civil war it's in. Iran and Hezbollah will accept things and go back to their priorities as well.

However, if the attacks do real damage to the regime Iran and Hezbollah will come to the rescue. They may also be angered if Hezbollah fighters or Iranian advisers are killed in the attacks. The question then is if they see an advantage to escalating and/or widening the conflict. If they do, I do not trust Obama or Kerry to keep things from spiraling out of control. The human toll will jump in the region and a huge jump in oil prices will severely damage fragile economies around the world, maybe even create a new depression.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking in Moscow, floated the proposal that Syria place its international chemical stockpile under international supervision.

“We are calling on the Syrian authorities [to] not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control, but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,” Lavrov said, referring to the international body that implements the Chemical Weapons Convention, agreed to by 189 nations, not including Syria.

Syria and the UN are reported as favorable to the idea. There may be some practical issues with the proposal and it may turn out to be a ploy, but how does President Obama not respond favorably to such a proposal? I think how he responds will be a good sign of his intent. If he reacts favorably then things can stand down. If he reacts harshly or mockingly then I think that's a sign that he wants to strike no matter what.

More: After thinking about the Russian proposal, it's a great out for Obama I think, if he can take yes for an answer. Russia is the only player with real leverage over the Syrian regime anyway, so let them go for it. Any success would be a win for the US too as long as those weapons are really destroyed, so let the Russians get their diplomatic win.

Then turn around and leverage that into a cease-fire, exile in Russia for Assad and company, and a chance to form a new government in Syria. Maybe it wouldn't provide justice for the victims, but it might prevent the next genocide.

How badly has Barack Obama screwed everything up regarding Syria? So bad that he has me siding with Alan Grayson of all people:

We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The “security state” is drowning in its own phlegm.

My position is simple: if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I’m not the only one who feels that way.

Over the weekend CNN had a story about how they had obtained 13 videos that were part of the classified briefing that was given to Congress. These were amateur videos very similar to the ones that began appearing on the internet in the hours after the August 21 attack. That they were given some sort of secret classification and then later backdoored to CNN is ridiculous.

Pretty much all of the actual evidence has been hidden away as "classified" by the Obama administration. Even from Congress. That has undermined President Obama's argument here and abroad.

I understand the need to protect sources and methods, but when the restrictions on releasing information become so tight that they damage the very case President Obama is trying to make then it's time to rethink just how much of the evidence really has to remain secret.

I'll be surprised if that happens before Obama's speech tomorrow night. If we get any more details they will probably be leaked in dribs and drabs the next few days, but a comprehensive declassification won't happen.

September 05, 2013

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton defended the U.S. response to crises in Libya and Syria on Tuesday, saying the Obama administration is projecting "smart power" by refusing to act alone or with brute force to stop autocratic repression in the two countries.

Where are the humanitarians on Libya? The country is swiftlyturning into another Somalia. The government is paralyzed, while its authority throughout the country has disintegrated. Brutal tribal and Islamist militias rule. Egyptian Christians and black Africans are subject to mistreatment, torture, and execution on racial and religious grounds. A rebellion by resentful Easterners and greedy security men has almost entirely choked off the country’s oil supply, its economic lifeline. Running on reserves, by the end of the year the government may no longer be able to provide food, medicine, electricity, or salaries.

We need to use every diplomatic tool we have to shame Assad, his wife, Asma, his murderous brother Maher and every member of his cabinet or military whom we can identify as being involved in this gas attack. We need to bring their names before the United Nations Security Council for condemnation. We need to haul them before the International Criminal Court. We need to make them famous. We need to metaphorically put their pictures up in every post office in the world as people wanted for crimes against humanity.

Actually, Friedman comes close here, but misses the real target, which is Russia and to a lesser extent China.

Assad is in an existential battle and shame is no longer in his emotional inventory, if it ever was. However, a public and detailed indictment against Assad and the responsible members of his regime would put the focus on Russian and Chinese support of his outlaw regime. Russia and China now more than ever need to interact with the rest of the world. That's harder to do when the rest of the world condemns and scorns you for propping up a thug who gasses his own people.

Assuming the rest of the world can still summon up condemnation and scorn for any other nation besides the US. That could be a little iffy.

But we should try. Russia helped create this mess and it's past time for them to act responsibly in helping to clean it up. Put the focus on them instead of us. It may fail anyway and we end up back at some sort of military response, but it's worth the attempt.

September 04, 2013

-I still don't get why the discussion about options for Syria is a binary one of attack or don't attack. Usually there would be a significant constituency in America and Europe clamoring for a peaceful resolution through international institutions. Now it's left to Vladimir Putin?

"If there is evidence that chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the U.N. Security Council," said Putin, a former officer in the Soviet KGB. "And it ought to be convincing. It shouldn't be based on some rumors and information obtained by intelligence agencies through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that."

So why not call him on that? Syria is Russia's client state and therefore should be Russia's problem to clean up. Why are we taking on that burden? Declassify most of the evidence, the real evidence and not that "trust me" bullshit, and demand that Putin rein in his puppet.

I should put that on a t-shirt. No, a flag, but then I'd have to get a flag pole.

To be fair, the full quote is this:

“To my knowledge, I have no knowledge of any agency that was a dissenter or anybody who had, you know, an alternative theory.”

Why not just say "I have no knowledge..."? That's what you and I would say. Kerry can't let it go at that however, he has to hiss out the weasel words first...because he's a typical Washington weasel. Or a retard. No, I'm going with weasel, though the two are not mutually exclusive.

“I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98%” of the world’s population “passed a treaty forbidding (chemical weapons) use, even when countries are engaged in war,” Obama said in Sweden.

And this:

“My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America’s and Congress’s credibility is on the line.”

There are times when he does stuff like this that I have to wonder if Barack Obama is mentally ill, because to so boldly attempt to rewrite the truth is either delusional or a sign of psychopathy. Seriously. Obama indeed was the one to utter the words "red line" and today it is his personal credibility that is on the line much more than America's, or anyone else's for that matter. It's astonishing to me, and more than a little worrisome, that he would even attempt to deny that. What planet is he on?

-On the other hand, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is just flat out full of crap:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told CNN host Wolf Blitzer that there are “dozens of countries who are going to stand with the United States, who will engage with us on military action [in Syria] and also that back us up 100 percent.”

Asked by Blitzer which countries she was referring to, Wasserman Schultz waffled, saying “that’s honestly, Wolf, something I’m not at liberty to say. Some of what I’ve learned is classified, some is unclassified but what I can tell you is that there are many nations who are committed to support the United States and our actions.”

It's the double-secret adoration that's the best, or so I've heard. I'm not actually cleared for that sort of thing.

-The phrase "war weary" keeps popping in the Syria debate, referring to Americans. I don't think most of us are weary of war as much as we are frustrated with the "damned if we do and damned if we don't" nature of that part of the world. As Rob put it the other day,

Think maybe we ought to let someone else do the right thing for a change. Maybe one of those countries perpetually glued to the sidelines who are always telling us what we did wrong.

Toss in the tribalism, centuries-old sectarian and ethnic hatreds, and a toxic form of Islam and you have a seemingly intractable mess that nobody in their right mind wants to touch. There are millions of good people in the region who should not be abandoned, but there are so many others who act as animals towards each other and America. It's not right to simply say "Fuck 'em," but the temptation is understandable.

-Iraq seems to be getting a lot of the blame for the pushback against Obama attacking Syria. You know, people talk so glibly about how the Iraq war was such a mistake, but I never hear them say what it would be like today if Bush had backed down in 2003.

It's as though they live in some magical world where there would not be tens of thousands of Iraqis murdered by Saddam's secret police and Fedayeen every year. Where Saddam would have gone all benevolent after the sanctions regime fell apart in 2004 and would not have reconstituted his WMD programs. Where Saddam would have seen the light and would not be actively supporting terrorists in the Middle East.

Of course, he or his evil spawn would be doing all of those things right now if Bush hadn't taken out his regime for reasons that went beyond WMD, and I'm not talking about 9/11. But the magical thinkers can't talk about that because their little minds can't handle it.

-I voted for McCain in 2008, but if he'd won I bet I wouldn't have voted for him in 2012. Not if he was talking this kind of crap:

McCain was making an appearance on "Fox & Friends" to build his case for supporting the rebels who are fighting the Assad regime in Syria when co-host Brian Kilmeade showed what he said was alarming video footage. The clip showed an explosion in a Syrian city with a presumed rebel fighter heard chanting, "Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!"

"I have a problem helping those people screaming that after a hit,” Kilmeade said.

A clearly annoyed McCain quickly hit back.

"You have a problem with that? Would you have a problem with an American Christian saying ‘thank God, thank God’?” McCain said. "That’s what they’re saying. Come on. Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you that they are moderates. I know them and I've been with them. For someone to say 'Allahu Akbar' is about as offensive as someone saying 'thank God.'"

Actually they are saying something along the lines of "God is great" or "God is the greater".

Tell me, John, how many Christian soldiers run around yelling "Jesus is great" when an enemy is killed? They're far more likely to get pushed into counseling for PTSD than think Jesus approves of war. How many Christians in general invoke the name of Jesus when committing any sort of violence? There may be a few whack jobs out there, but it's far from the cultural norm.

There's a lot more to unpack about Islam invoking God in the name of violence(among many other things), but I'm out of time at the moment. Suffice it to say, it's not the same as "thank God."

September 01, 2013

Like most people who stay connected to the news, I figured that we would hear at some point yesterday that the expected attack on Syria had begun. Instead, we got Obama coming out of left field with a delay while he asks the approval of Congress. I applaud that, but somehow even when he does the right thing he manages to botch it. Well, he's botched everything else for the last week and a half, so why not that too?

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets.

...

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

Having twice said he had already made the decision, he then turns around and asks for permission from Congress. This was hailed as some sort of brilliant move by David Axelrod, who crowed on Twitter that "Congress is now the dog that caught the car." Uh huh. And if Congress fails to pass a resolution supporting his decision, what does he do then? After all, he's made it clear that he's made his decision.

Does he order the attack regardless? If he does, however, with Congress having exercised its Constitutional power over declarations of war in the negative in this case, would the military obey him? Should the military obey him?

Those last two are pretty damn serious questions, and Congress should head them off by demanding that the rejection of any resolution would be binding on the president. The last thing we need is for Congress to reject Obama's request, Obama to then order the military to attack anyway, and senior military leaders to then split on whether or not it's actually a legal order. That would be a disaster, but it's one I could see Obama bungling his way into easily.

It's clear, in hindsight, that we should have had a better strategy in Syria the last two years. Finding moderate Sunni and Kurdish rebels and helping them build a credible fighting force that could also fend off the Sunni extremists should have been a higher priority. President Obama bears only a part of that blame. But his earlier "red line" mistake and the clumsy bluster, followed by weakness, followed by diplomatic failures of the last ten days are all on him.

Once again, the first rule of holes applies to this president: Stop digging, goddammit!

There are probably only two possibilities at this point. Obama can back down, leading to a dangerous humiliation for the United States. Or, Obama can attack.

That attack could still lead to humiliation if it is too weak, or it could set off a powder keg if it is too strong. As a bonus, in either case it could set off a Constitutional crisis if it takes place despite Congress declining to approve it. Or it could manage to thread the needle and turn out just right. I'll not be betting the house on that, or anything else.

There's a third choice, but since I've seen nobody mention it, it's probably too crazy to consider. I'll throw it out there anyway:

Build a case, a detailed criminal case, for what really happened that night and who the culpable parties are. Name the military units involved, their commanders, and the senior officers as far up the chain of command as the evidence goes. Declassify far more evidence than so far has been. The knowledge that we have been able to gather has already started to appear in press reports anyway, so stop being coy.

Present the case to the American people and the world as a crime against humanity. Not as a war crime, not as a justification for US military action(initially, at least), but as a clear crime against humanity. Demand that a court, either the ICC or another created by the UN for just this purpose, indict and try the responsible individuals.

Demand that the government of Syria turn over those named individuals and that Russia, China, and Iran support that demand. Iran will just laugh, but despite their support for the Assad regime, Russia and China want to deal with the rest of the world on matters far more important than Syria. Worldwide condemnation might get in the way of an awful lot of business for their elites. They would play ball to some extent, particularly if the US case was made ahead of time with the intent of boxing them into just such a corner.

If nothing else, a trial would be the best chance to actually provide justice to those murdered and their survivors. How much justice will they get from a few missile strikes, "carefully calibrated" to send a message, and likely to not bring those unnamed officials to account? Rather then meaningless attacks, why don't we try to bring the people responsible to trial and give real justice to the dead?

Properly played, such a move might also then lead to discussions about removing the chemical weapons completely in trade for some sort of political solution, including asylum somewhere for Assad and his closest supporters. The rest of the parties would work on some sort of power sharing political arrangement such as Lebanon's.

The latter is probably about as likely as me hitting the lottery, but we try and if it fails we walk away. For damn sure it is better than us either doing some half-assed attack that has at best one chance in three of succeeding or completely destroying our national credibility by walking away.

The third way will never happen, not just because Obama has boxed us in, but because too many of our elites are either too stupid or too greedy to see outside of that box. I think our media and political elites would love a splendid little war, as would any corporate interests set to make some money off of it. It would be a nice little lift going into the fall.

So I'm pretty sure that another splendid war has been booked, unintended consequences or Constitutional crises be damned.

So where's this report with the evidence about that Syrian chemical weapons attack? It was supposed to be out yesterday and they apparently briefed members of Congress on it last night, so why hasn't it been given to the rest of us? Are they counting on a standard late Friday afternoon document dump to hide bad news?

What I want to see is proof that we know what happened, that any attack makes sense given those facts, and that we really know enough about what is happening on the ground in real time to know what we are attacking.

One thing I don't want to hear about is trust. Not from an administration that is still covering up what the CIA and State Department were really doing in Benghazi a year ago.

Show us the evidence or stay the hell out of the Syria mess, which probably we should stay out of regardless.

It is a collection of assessments and assertions with only a few details offered here and there to back them up. It unfortunately does not lay out a seamless and detailed chain of events that clearly prove what happened that night. For example, we have this:

Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.

Followed by this:

Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.

Okay, so we have Syrian chemical weapons personnel "operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra." Then we have "a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area." What area? That same suberb? What regime element?

Then we have two mentions of attacks being launched from "regime controlled territory." What territory? The suburb of 'Adra? The "Damascus area"? Why the coyness about all of that? Why are they not clearly tying these things together?

Anadolu Agency (AA) reached detailed list including information about the chemical attack as well as the names of Syrian army troops who were on duty during the attack in Damascus.

According to the list of names of the Syrian regime troops who participated in the chemical attack, 155th Missile Brigade: 51,52,577,578,579 and 1097th Missile Row and technical support row to support them were resposible for the chemical attack.

The attack directly organized by Syrian regime forces was done on 21 August, 2013 at 02.45 a.m. targeting Zamelka, Douma-Harasta regions in East and West Ghouta.

The chemical weapon attacks by Assad regime were carried out by two separate centers simultaneously.

The attack was carried out with about 15-20 chemical warheads missile-rockets by the troops between 155th Missile Brigade in Qutayfa, 35 km to the north of Damascus and 4th Armored Division in Qasyoun Mountain. In the attack in Qutayfa, it is estimated that the regime used the missiles of FROG-7/Luna and/or M600. In Qasyoun, 220 mm rockets with 15-70 km-range were estimated to be used in the attack.

Does such detailed intelligence really exist? If it does, why can't we see it too?

The answer I'm afraid, lies with the most transparent administration in history being unable to keep the culture of secrets in the intelligence community in check to a reasonable degree.

August 28, 2013

The attacks, which are expected to involve scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, which would risk an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe and could open up the sites to raids by militants, officials said.

The strikes would instead be aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, according to the options being reviewed within the administration.

I see the wisdom of not attacking the chemical weapon storage sites, but how do we know that chemical weapons have not already been distributed to the military units on the target list?

From what I've read, the US and Israel have a pretty good handle on where Syria's chemical weapons are stored and they keep a close watch on those facilities. Can they really keep such a close watch that they can tell which Syrian army units have been armed with chemical weapons from those facilities and which have not? Did they detect the arming of the units that apparently fired the weapons on August 21? If not, how do we know if we are risking uncontrolled chemical releases by attacking those units?

Perhaps we do have that level of detailed intelligence but we just can't admit it. I'm skeptical.

Foreign Policy is reporting that intercepted calls are part of the evidence against the Assad regime:

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

I'd like to see the details of those calls and whatever intercepts occurred earlier, because that description above makes it sound like it was something other than a regime-approved operation. If that's the case, do punitive measures against the regime make sense anymore or is there another approach to take? It might sound funny, given how the civil war so far has been basically one giant war crime, but if we know the units and commanders that carried out the attack, should we instead demand that they be turned over to the ICC to be tried for war crimes?

No, what the Obama administration appears to want is a limited, finite series of strikes that will be carefully calibrated to send a message and cause the just-right amount of pain. It wants to set Assad back but it doesn’t want to cause death and mayhem. So the most likely option is probably to destroy a bunch of government or military infrastructure — much of which will probably be empty.

Essentially a repeat of Clinton's Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1998.

Well, it's not 1998, we're not dealing with an isolated Iraq, and I'm skeptical that anything can be "carefully calibrated" when it comes to Syria right now.

Perhaps I would be more at ease if I could see the intelligence and the planning that Obama can, but I can't. So I'm not at ease with what's happening, not at all.